Sunday, October 14, 2012

Open Blocks and MOP 2

In my last post I was describing how owner, delegate and this are needed in open blocks and how builders and resolve strategies change the behaviour of an open block. I also stated that this situation is not very satisfying for the next MOP.

The question is then, if there is a deeper principle we can use. The reason why many see a groovy.lang.Closure not as a closure in the more functional sense is partially, because it is resolving names dynamically. Dynamically in the sense, the a closure, once created at runtime, has all names resolved. We on the other hand resolve the names on demand. I will call the imaginary part doing this "dynamic resolver". This dynamic resolver is currently either owner or delegate or a mix between them. But the important part is, that we have something that resolves the name for us.

Now I had the following idea for the resolving of the implicit this part, consisting of two parts... Part one is that I want to let each sub block share the same resolver unless a new resolver is set. Newly created Closures then would get that resolver. The standard resolver would resolve everything against the surrounding class. And if I say "standard" and "new", this means you can set a new resolver, which all sub blocks will then share. The question is if we then can still cover all the bases with this approach and if it is actually better than the old way.

Not-nested Builder

Let us assume we have a builder, that captures each method call, thus if the Closure delegate is set with delegate-only, we will never call the surrounding class. This is actually very much the resolver idea. But why was this not enough in the past? Because we may want to go to the class as well, either after or before the delegate is asked. In my idea the resolver would have to do that. To be able to do this though, we need somehow a resolver for the class too, which I will declare to be always available through the API and thus can be called from the custom resolver as well. This way we have the default OWNER_ONLY and can create DELEGATE_FIRST, DELEGATE_ONLY and OWNER_FIRST quite easily.

Open Sub Blocks

For the usage of an open block in a Closure the idea says, we just reference the resolver from the owner. This realizes by default OWNER_ONLY/OWNER_FIRST. Just like today, we would kind of go to the owner and resolve the call there in a further step, which may end up in a delegate or another owner to continue from there. The difference with the approach here is, that we don't actually go to the owner. Instead we give the resolver to our new Closure and the Closures's behaviour will then be defined by this. If this sub Closure had no delegate set, then OWNER_ONLY and OWNER_FIRST in the old way are equal. Since if there is no delegate set, we don't go that path at all. If the delegate is set we have nested builder, which I will handle later. So for now it is important to note, that regardless what the parent Closure has set as resolver, we effectively realize a OWNER_ONLY/OWNER_FIRST.

Nested Builder

So going back to the sub Closure with a delegate set, we first to note that a builder of some kind will set that delegate, meaning we can set a new resolver here as well. Now with OWNER_ONLY we would not realize any builder since the builder would never be called. With OWNER_FIRST we ask first the parent and then maybe the delegate, depending on if there was a response to the request before or not. If we set a resolver, that first asks the old resolver and then the builder, we get this strategy. With DELEGATE_ONLY we have a builder, that does not ask the parent at all. Here using a resolver, that resolves everything against the builder only will realize this. DELEGATE_FIRST means we first ask the builder and then the parent. Here it is clear, that if we use a resolver that first asks the old resolver and then the builder, we get that as well.

To Self

TO_SELF is the only strategy I did not mention yet. I see no use for this strategy in terms of builders. But that one can be made too, by a resolver, that resolves against the Closure class, ignoring owner and delegate of course.


The most obvious difference between this way and the old way is, that instead of potentially going up the tree if Closures to the surrounding class and in worst case going it back down again, we have a chain of resolvers, the amount depending on the amount of nested builders. The other most obvious difference is that instead of depending on a predefined strategy and a combination of owner and delegate we get rid of the owner completely and have a resolver instead of the delegate.

Further differences come of course with the details of the resolver. For the MOP2 the basis should be something that answers to the request of a method call with a method, not with the result of the method call. And it should answer if the method call is allowed to be cached or not. With the current way of piping everything through the MOP methods on Closure those two goals are impossible. A general meta class as for a normal class is not enough here, since we have to handle the "implicit this" different. Anything I came up with so far, looked quite complicated. Complex as diagram and difficult to explain too. With this concept I can say that everything goes to the resolver and be done. I think that is better understood.

For the resolver itself the question is open if it should be simply an object and we go by the mop methods (returning methods now) comparable to today, or if it should be an explicit resolver thingy, maybe even as general MOP2 element.

I guess you can call this a draft so far ;)

No comments: